Debates of May 30th, 2023

Government's Alleged Inadequate Response to Foreign Interference

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP to address the question of privilege raised by the member for Durham this morning.

We in the NDP are extremely concerned about the situation facing the member for Durham, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, and, potentially, other members.

In a ruling delivered on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux stated at page 6709 of the Debates that he had:

...no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.

As the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills said in his question of privilege, we believe that intimidation and threats are breaches of members' privilege and of the House as an institution. We have no doubt that this is a prima facie question of privilege, and we support its being dealt with as such, whether it is in the context of the work that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently doing as a result of the motion moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills or as a separate matter.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I thank the hon. member. I will take that under advisement and return to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Public Inquiry into Allegations of Foreign Interference

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech by talking about the impact of foreign interference on people. In our country, there are countless Canadians who have fled oppressive countries and oppressive regimes to come to Canada to make Canada their home, hoping to be free from that oppression and to be able to live in security, safety and liberty. Sadly, the same oppression that they fled often follows these Canadians to their new home country. I want to talk about some of the communities that are impacted. Many of us have heard from members of the Iranian community who continue to be targeted by the Iranian government for raising concerns about the human rights violations going on in Iran. We hear from activists, in Canada, of Iranian descent who took up the call of the “women, life, liberty” chants of revolution and justice, only to find out that they are being targeted here in Canada and that their family members are being targeted.

We know of people who leave India to come to Canada who are also being targeted. People from Muslim communities are targeted for being outspoken about the treatment of minority Muslim communities. Women activists who raise concerns about the systemic oppression of women in India, Christians and followers of other minority religions, and activists fighting the caste system are targeted, and their family members are targeted. We also know of many members of the Sikh community who are specifically targeted for their activism, for raising questions of human rights violations, systemic violations of human rights perpetrated by the Indian state against Sikhs. They are targeted with visa denial and with threats to their family. Of course, we know Canadians of Chinese descent who are targeted here in Canada, whether it is through the police stations that are set up and targeting Canadians of Chinese descent, or targeted at those who support the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong or those who are raising concerns about the human rights violations facing Uyghur people.

We know that members of Parliament have been targeted, like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for Vancouver East, among others. There is a direct impact on people because of foreign interference.

We also know that it has an impact on our democracy. The New Democratic Party, naturally, as our name states, has a very strong relationship with and fierce belief in defending democracy. We believe in the importance of voting and want to see more Canadians participate in voting. Voting matters because we hope that people vote and then vote for change, and that change will make people's lives better. We believe in the power of people, unlike the leader of the Conservative Party, who does not actually have an interest in increasing voting participation, because his party benefits from cynicism and attacking institutions that lower voter turnout because lower voter turnouts are favourable to the Conservative Party. It does not actually have an interest in increasing voter participation, and has often put in place laws that discourage voting and make voting turnout harder.

The Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are seeking to sweep these allegations of foreign interference under the rug because they seek to hold onto power and are not taking these allegations seriously. Unlike both of them, New Democrats are committed to taking this matter seriously and forcing action.

When the Prime Minister of our country ignores serious allegations of foreign interference, that hurts our democracy. When the leader of the Conservative Party wants to score points and play petty politics instead of taking these allegations seriously, that is another example of a party that is not serious about democracy. It is our profound belief as New Democrats that we need to defend our democratic system.

To defend our democracy, we need to be clear that, with respect to restoring the confidence of Canadians, there is a serious concern about the appearance of bias. This does not go to the conclusions or to the work, but, if there is an appearance of bias, it undermines the trust that Canadians have in the process and the work that is being done. If that confidence is undermined, then we cannot see any action that will restore the trust that Canadians have. The clear example of that trust being undermined is the fact that the special rapporteur engaged, as principal lawyer, Ms. Sheila Block, who has a clear track record of having donated to the Liberal Party in every election since the early 2000s.

As she is someone someone who was tasked with analyzing and reviewing the documents and preparing the report, that is clear evidence of a bias. This is coupled with the fact that the report does not challenge any assertions made by the government. The government made assertions, and those assertions are then repeated in the report. That gives a clear appearance of bias that undermines and erodes the work of the special rapporteur.

Clearly, all decision-makers must be perceived as unbiased. If it is a judge, the judge must be unbiased. In the case of the special rapporteur, there is a clear perception of bias that is undermining the effort to restore confidence in our electoral system, and that is unacceptable.

From the beginning, New Democrats have highlighted that the government failed to take the allegations of foreign interference seriously. Appointing a special rapporteur instead of having a public inquiry was the first mistake. The report just accepts the government's findings without any push-back or any rigorous examination of the government's assertions. Now, the clear appearance of bias makes it no longer tenable for Mr. Johnston to continue in his work.

That is why we have been calling for a public inquiry. From the beginning, we have said that a public inquiry is a process that has the rigour necessary to take this matter seriously. It would give Canadians transparency; moreover, it would allow the cross-examination of witnesses, and it would be independent. That is a process that will restore faith in our electoral system.

We have said all along that we need an independent and transparent process, such as a public inquiry, to restore confidence in our electoral system and clearly show that these allegations are being taken seriously and that we want to do more to strengthen our democracy.

What New Democrats are calling for, to this extent, is to restore confidence in our electoral system. We want Canadians to believe that their votes matter. We want Canadians to vote more. We want to reverse the tide of apathy, which has seen voter turnout continue to decline. We know that these allegations of foreign interference are certainly going to contribute to that erosion in public trust, which will contribute to lowering voter turnout.

We want to keep our democracy safe. We want to keep Canadians and parliamentarians safe from foreign interference. That is why we are calling for two specific things in this motion. First, we want the government to remove Mr. Johnston from his position as special rapporteur, not as a personal slight, but because he can no longer restore the confidence of Canadians in our electoral process given the clear appearance of bias. Second, we want the government to launch a public inquiry to investigate this matter and to give clear conclusions that strengthen and reinforce our democracy.

The Prime Minister ignored the evidence. The Conservatives and their leader do not even want to look at the evidence. I will be looking at the evidence, and I will not be ignoring it. I will take it seriously, continue to pursue a public inquiry and use all tools to continue to force that.

I want Canadians to know that we are taking this matter seriously, because I truly believe in the strength of our democracy. I believe we can reinforce and strengthen it. Mr. Johnston is an honourable man and has shown a clear track record of service to country. I am very certain that, upon seeing the will of this House, Mr. Johnston will himself withdraw as the special rapporteur.

I want the government to understand that this is a matter we take seriously, that our democracy is something that we have to be vigilant to defend and that to do so, we need a public inquiry. At this point, Mr. Johnston needs to be removed as special rapporteur. That is what our democracy calls for, and that is what New Democrats are demanding.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who participated in the study that was done at the Canada-China committee, where the report was tabled a couple of weeks ago. In that regard, in the recommendations is a call for a foreign agents registry; there are also a lot of other pieces that could, in fact, form the terms of reference for some form of inquiry.

Given the fact that so much of what we have had exposure to is all covered by the Official Secrets Act and could never actually be made public, could the hon. member for Burnaby South give us more details as to what he would see as those terms of reference?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. We have a template of how to proceed in this type of sensitive situation. I want to acknowledge that there are matters of national security, and it is in our interest to keep them secret. Doing so ensures that our secret services can continue to do their work and that their process, the work they do and those that they rely upon will remain safe and secret, so that our work can continue.

Given that, we have seen in the Rouleau commission that there is an approach that recognizes national security but still allows for the rigour of a public examination. This is the template that I would suggest we follow. A public inquiry, as the Rouleau commission showed, could involve elements where a judge is independently ruling on what matters should be brought before the public. There would then be cross-examination of statements made, for a testing of evidence, which is far better than one person's opinion.

That is why we need a public inquiry.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the most disturbing comments, I think, in the Johnston report is right here in the conclusions, on page 5.

It says, “There are serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government”. Clearly, the government is not doing its job. This, I believe, is negligence. I believe that a minister should resign over this. We are talking about foreign interference.

I think that, under the Westminster parliamentary tradition, somebody should resign. It is that serious. Would the hon. member for Burnaby South have any comments on that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the allegations of foreign interference are serious and that the Johnston report actually highlighted some shortcomings. One of those was the fact that there was a clear breakdown in communication between CSIS and the government.

It is absolutely the role of the minister to be proactive in getting information and following up on that information. I would also add that, according to the Johnston report, while the Prime Minister and the ministers were aware of allegations, they were not told what to do. They chose not to pursue it any further.

I think that showed a serious lack of judgment. We expect the government, upon hearing allegations of foreign interference, even if it is not given clear steps that it is recommended to take, to be proactive in asking for follow-ups. It should do its own follow-up to ensure that its systems are strong enough to respond to foreign interference. Therefore, I agree that there are serious mistakes that the government made, as well as shortcomings, and it should be held accountable.

That is why this vote, hopefully, will push for a public inquiry and remove Mr. Johnston from the special rapporteur position.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP for tabling this motion.

There is something about it that seems a little unusual, a little strange or ambivalent coming from the NDP. A few weeks ago, the NDP openly praised David Johnston's appointment. Its position led me to believe that the NDP supported the work that David Johnston was about to undertake.

Leader, can you explain this position to me?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member must address his comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Burnaby South, with a brief reply.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have not criticized Mr. Johnston personally, then or now. Our criticism concerns the appearance of bias. It concerns the fact that there are many examples and a large body of evidence showing the appearance of bias, which is detracting from efforts to restore confidence in our system. This appearance of bias is why we are demanding that the government relieve Mr. Johnston of his duties. We are not attacking him personally; we are attacking the appearance of bias, which prevents us from being able to move forward with this special rapporteur.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this opposition day motion introduced by the NDP. I believe that the manner in which the New Democrats have brought this forward is very unfortunate.

I am becoming more and more concerned with the willingness of this House to arbitrarily attempt to ruin reputations and smear great Canadians, people who put service above self and people who come and offer themselves to make our country better. I am quickly reminded of the time when, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NDP helped the Bloc and the Conservatives drag the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada before this House, before the bar. It is an archaic tradition in the Westminster parliamentary system that had happened only twice in the history of this Parliament.

For nothing more than cheap political points, the NDP helped the Conservatives and the Bloc drag an individual before the bar, so that they could scold the individual publicly. I see this happening more and more, especially from the Conservatives. I find it alarming when I see our friends from the NDP doing it.

I would like to start by reading some stuff that has been said about Mr. Johnston. Stephen Harper said, “Mr. Johnston has a strong record of public service, a broad base of support and an impressive list of achievements.... He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him.” We can also listen to what the member for Calgary Midnapore said at a PROC meeting in March 2019. She said, “There's no doubt as to the integrity and the experience and the resumé of Mr. Johnston.”

At a PROC meeting in November 2018, the member for Perth—Wellington said, “It always begs the question, ‘What about the next appointment?’ I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—he's an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian—but what about next time?” They were anxiously waiting for Mr. Johnston's next appearance on the Canadian stage. That was the member for Perth—Wellington.

I have another comment from the member for Calgary Midnapore from November 6, 2018, at a PROC meeting. She said, “Thank you for being here today. Of course, as a woman, I have tremendous respect for you since you raised four amazing women. Congratulations. I think that's a wonderful accomplishment.” In a November 2020 PROC meeting, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan said, “I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that Mr. Johnston is an eminent Canadian.”

The member for Sarnia—Lambton recently said, “I am very happy to have been able to speak today about the value of the role of Governor General and to give honour to the many who have served well in that role, such as the Right Hon. David Johnston.” The member for Thornhill, who is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, simply put out a seven-word tweet on April 17, 2021. She said, “Who misses the Rt. Hon David Johnston?”

Those are words from Conservatives. Conservatives had great things to say about David Johnston. By all their accounts, he was indeed an exceptional Canadian who did exceptional things, until he was suddenly asked to look into something and perhaps form an opinion that did not quite jive with the Conservative way of approaching things and the Conservative narrative.

If we flash forward to today, this is what Conservatives are now suddenly saying about David Johnston: The member for Calgary Forest Lawn said, “Another random Liberal tasked by the Prime Minister to support his corruption and scandals. Nothing to see here folks”.

[An hon. member]

Good reading.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, I will continue to read what the Conservatives have been saying.

Madam Speaker, the member for Thornhill, who had that seven-word tweet praising and pining for the days of David Johnston to return, said, “The Prime Minister appoints Trudeau Foundation insider to tell us that we don't need a public inquiry into Beijing's donations to the Trudeau Foundation & their election interference.” Wow, what a change of heart this is from the member for Thornhill.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, my neighbouring riding, said, “Trudeau Foundation board member appointed by [the Prime Minister] to report to [the Prime Minister] on if there should be a public inquiry that could be damaging to [the Prime Minister]. This seems fine.” Of course, it was in his sarcastic tone that we are all so used to hearing in this House.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, “[The Prime Minister] names another Trudeau Foundation insider to tell us we don’t need an inquiry into Beijing’s interference.”

The Leader of the Opposition, himself, said in a tweet just days ago, “We see today that his ski buddy, cottage neighbour, family friend and member of the Beijing-financed Trudeau Foundation came out and did exactly what I predicted”.

What a bunch of hypocrites they are: the gall, the audacity. I guess I might be able to wrap my head around it if it were different Conservatives who were saying one thing a couple of years ago and now others suddenly taking a new approach, but it is the exact same people. The member for Thornhill, who longed for the days of David Johnston, is now suddenly accusing him of being an insider. I just cannot wrap my head around it.

Well, I can when we look at the way that Conservatives routinely will trample on anybody's reputation and will trample on anything that they absolutely see as being an opportunity to squeeze out a tiny bit of political gain. Of course, the gravy would be the fundraising that they do off that because we know that they use all this for their fundraising purposes, one can only imagine how many times. I would love to have the analytics on how many times David Johnston has been used in fundraising email blasts that come from the Conservatives. I am sure it is way up there.

It looks like the member for Abbotsford is agreeing with me, so I guess they do use him in fundraising.

See, that is what we are talking about here. The Leader of the Opposition has a job to do as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He is supposed to hold the government to account and that is completely understandable, completely acceptable and absolutely within the realm of what he is supposed to do. The problem is that he is not interested in that. He is interested only in trying to spread misinformation, and create and exaggerate conspiracies where they do not exist.

What I find to be the most troubling is that he will do this completely at the expense of eminent Canadians who have served our country, such as an individual like David Johnston who was appointed as governor general by Stephen Harper when the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, sat in that government. The Conservatives do not seem to have any regard at all. They have no shame at all in just trampling over top of people if they think they can just get an ounce of political gain out of it.

I am glad that the member for Burnaby South got—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be individuals who are really anxious to ask questions, but now is not the time so I would ask them to wait until such time as I call for questions and comments. In the meantime, they might want to jot them down so they do not forget them.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pause and reflect on what I was going to say.

The Leader of the Opposition recently said that he does not want to be silenced. He does not want to take a briefing. The Prime Minister said that the government realizes there is a lot going on with national security and wants to make sure all parties are informed. The special rapporteur, David Johnston, recommended that party leaders receive a briefing so they can understand what is going on. At the heart of this, hopefully at the heart of what we are all doing here, is to serve Canadians in the best interest of Canadians. At the heart of this is allowing those who are in these positions of power, whether that is government or opposition, to have the ability to understand the facts, to get that proper security classification and to receive the briefings.

I applaud the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, for actually agreeing to do that. I disagree with the motion the NDP brought forward, but what I find remarkable is how the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Bloc just brush it off. They say that they do not want to be silenced. That is such a ludicrous statement.

My colleague, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge, stood in this House, gave a 20-minute speech earlier, replied to questions for 10 minutes and she full-on told us during her intervention today that she was a member of NSICOP, she has the security clearances and she receives briefings, but she is capable of deciphering between what is classified and what is not. It has in no way limited her ability to represent her constituents. It has not limited her ability to participate in debate. Other members from the Conservative Party are in the same position as her, and indeed it has not silenced her.

When I asked the Leader of the Opposition that question earlier today after he spoke, he gave the most ridiculous answer. I asked him why he would not take the briefing and if it was really about being silenced. Nobody else who has that classification and who has seen those documents is silenced, but he seems to be the only one who would end up being silenced. I asked him if it was just that he wanted to be willfully ignorant so he does not have to be responsible. His response to me was that he knew the way this would work, and he would go into the Prime Minister's Office, who would throw a bunch of papers on the desk and then put a big stamp on them and say that he could not say a word when he left.

This is an individual who wants to be the leader of the country, and this is the manner in which he thinks security and intelligence is shared in a G7 country, a Five Eyes alliance partner. This is the way he thinks confidential information is shared. He would just go on up to the Prime Minister's Office in West Block, who would throw down some papers on the table and tell him to read them and to not say anything when he leaves. I cannot wrap my head around how somebody can actually think that is how it happens.

Of course he knows better than that and he knows that is not the way it is, but he is playing that game, and I cannot understand why he thinks playing that game and acting that way is something that will resonate with Canadians. I do not understand how he thinks Canadians will take assurances in somebody who acts that way as being responsible enough to be the prime minister of this country, which is ultimately what he seeks to do. I find it very perplexing.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying to hide behind a veil of ignorance. He is trying to not participate. He is trying to not have any information because he just wants to continue doing what he is doing, which is ranting on, pointing fingers at the Prime Minister, talking about the Trudeau Foundation and clipping that.

The leader of this opposition participates in this House of Commons, and to his credit he enjoys being in here, more than I have seen any other leader from that side of the House in the time I have been here. What he does with it is he comes in here, gives this speech and could probably care less who is talking to. He then takes the clip, blasts it out in an email and tells people to look at how he is standing up for them. He then tells them to send money and click “donate now” and to give them more of their money so they can use it to beat the Liberals.

I will shift gears for a second.

Now I want to address the fact that the NDP is bringing forward this motion. The NDP is taking a really interesting stance on this. New Democrats are basically saying that they really respect David Johnston, he is an eminent Canadian, he has done all these great things and they respect him. They respect him to be able to do this work, but they just do not respect the fact that he has come to an outcome that they disagree with. That is the only way I can read this.

Here is what David Christopherson had to say, the former NDP member. He was a member of this House for a very long time, had a lot of character when he was in here, he represented—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are still individuals who seem to think it is question and comment time, and it is not. There is another five minutes and 43 seconds left. It is coming, so I would just ask members to wait. I know they are anxious.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, David Christopherson sat on the procedure and House affairs committee. He was in this chamber for a very long time. He was well regarded among my NDP colleagues and indeed probably by everybody in this House. Here is what he had to say when he was before David Johnston at a PROC committee just a couple of years ago: “You are the gold standard of public service and I can't imagine any position for which you wouldn't be eminently qualified to represent Canadians and bring that fairness and values, and your integrity and your intelligence, your experience, to bear.” He went on to say, “I have the highest regard for you, as does my caucus, and if at the end of the day, you end up being the debates commissioner, we as a country would be well served.”

That is David Christopherson, the former NDP member from Hamilton, who made those comments. If he is correct and the NDP feels the way Mr. Christopherson does about David Johnston, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say someone is an eminent Canadian who is overly qualified to do this and whose integrity and intelligence are above everybody else's, and then all of a sudden, when they get a report from him, say they do not like what he said, so it is best that he step aside and we do it a different way. I am very perplexed by it. I cannot understand why the NDP is skating this line, trying to position themselves somewhere between thinking David Johnston is amazing and saying he has to go because they do not like the report he produced.

Members will note that NDP members were not calling for David Johnston to leave a week ago. They only started doing that when he brought out this report. In their eyes, the only difference they could have possibly had between then and now is the fact that this report came out. They do not like what he said in the report, but I will tell my NDP colleagues, as can anybody who sits on the PROC committee and heard the witnesses who came forward, that Mr. Johnston's reasoning for not having a public inquiry jibes exactly with what the head of the RCMP, the head of CSIS and the national security intelligence people said. All of these individuals, who came before committee, told us the exact same thing. He came to the exact same conclusion the experts were telling us in committee.

I am glad to see the member for Burnaby South is willing to accept and receive classified information in order to understand how Mr. Johnston came to these conclusion, but two other parties in this House, which are supposed to be here for the purpose of holding the government accountable, are not even interested in the information that would give them the ability to hold the government accountable.

It should not come as a surprise that I will vote against the opposition day motion. There has been a lot of talk, and I find it very unfortunate that we seem to be on this crusade of trampling over the reputations of Canadians, with a willingness to do whatever is possible for a bit of political gain. Again I am reminded, and I have thought about it several times today, that I was one of the only Liberals sitting in the House of Commons during the pandemic, in this exact same seat, when the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc dragged the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada before the bar just for political gain.

I understand where the NDP is on this. If we want to assess the politics of it, the NDP is just trying to find a difference between themselves and the Liberals. The only way they can really do it is by trying to shift things a bit to say they will call out David Johnston and call for the firing of David Johnston. They dragged the president of PHAC to the bar of the House of Commons, which had only happened prior to that twice in the history of this country. They had no problem doing that.

This is for political gain. It is for no reason other than that, and I find it shameful. It is one thing to have a debate and an open discussion about the best way forward for this country in light of foreign interference. It is a whole other thing when we start trampling over people's reputations, in particular people who cannot defend themselves in here and people who have served this country with incredible distinction over the years.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the only party that has been trampling on the reputation of the former governor general is the Liberal Party. Its members knew that there was a perceived conflict of interest with the links to the Trudeau Foundation and with the close family ties going all the way back to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It was very clear that there was an obvious conflict of interest. That right there was enough for them to realize that they should look beyond Mr. Johnston. In a country of close to 40 million people, surely to goodness they could have found one person who did not have ties to the Trudeau Foundation and who did not have ties to the Prime Minister's family.

How is it that the Liberal government, every single time it decides to do something, is found to have a conflict of interest? Let us just look at the infrastructure minister's sister-in-law being appointed as the interim ethics commissioner. Again, that was a conflict of interest. Why is it that, every time this government does something, it becomes tied up in an ethics violation?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the member for Perth—Wellington said, “It always begs the question, What about the next appointment? I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—”

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Five years ago.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands had an opportunity to ask a question. It is not time for him to answer that question or to ask another, unless I ask for questions and comments again. I would ask the hon. member to hold off on any other comments that he has.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's colleague, a sitting Conservative MP, said, “I don't think anyone has any qualms about David Johnston—he's an exceptional human being and an exceptional Canadian”.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

In 2018.